Did Berg's Captors try to Negotiate a Prisoner Exchange?

Upon reading the full translation of the statement made by the man who beheaded Berg in the video. I wonder if and when any attempts for a prisoner
exchange were ever made? The U.S. had to have known of this man's kidnapping shortly after it happen and before his death, could there have been a
chance of perhaps making a false exchange, freeing Berg and perhaps capture his captors? The lack of coverage or stories on this particular part of
the statement is intriguing, I don't see the reason why the captors would have mentioned it if they didn't actually considered or offered it at one
point.

excerpt taken from full statement found here: www.homelandsecurityus.com...And as for you and the Americans soldiers wife then we say that we offered to the American administration this prisoner in exchange for some of
the prisoners in Abu Ghareb prison but they refused

Then we say but if the dignity of Muslims and Muslims in Abu Ghareb prison and others is worth theur blood and souls

Trade attempt alleged: In the video of Berg, the executioners said they had tried to trade him for prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

''For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage for some of the
detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused,'' one of the men read from a statement.

The US has a "will not negotiate" policy. It has been in effect since the Iran hostage days. Nor should we ever negotiate with terrorists....ever.
If you think one person being executed is bad, imagine the bloodshed if we did negotiate. They would be taking people from around the and holding
them hostage. www.american.edu...

U.S. Government Responsibilities When Private U.S. Citizens are Taken Hostage:
Based upon past experience, the U.S. Government concluded that paying ransom or making other concessions to terrorists in exchange for the release of
hostages increases the danger that others will be taken hostage. The U.S. Government policy is, therefore, to reject any demands for ransom, prisoner
exchanges, and deals with terrorists in exchange for hostage release. At the same time, the U.S. Government will make every effort, including contact
with representatives of the captors, to obtain the release of the hostages without paying ransom, exchanging prisoners, etc.

Consequently, the United States strongly urges American companies and private citizens not to pay terrorist ransom demands. It believes that good
security practices, relatively modest security expenditures, and continual close cooperation with embassy and local authorities can lower the risk to
Americans living in high-threat environments.

The U.S. Government is concerned for the welfare of its citizens but cannot support requests that host governments violate their own laws or abdicate
their normal law enforcement responsibilities.

I must really think out of the box or something, but even though our official policy is not to negotiate with terrorists, doesn't anyone else see it
as being logical to maybe attempt a negotiation just to gain intelligence or access to the bad guys?

it boggles the brain sometimes as how these people like Bin Laden, Al Zahiri, and Al Zarqawi elude capture and detection, yet they can keep up with
current events, and release videos and tapes whenever they wish via tv or internet.

basically what I am trying to say is, we can officially say we don't negotiate with terrorists, but wouldn't it be beneficial to fake negotiation
with them? and is it possible that things like this happen all the time and that Saddam's capture was negotiated some how?

Originally posted by Yoda
It also makes you wander something else, just who in Abu Ghareb it is that they wanted out ?

Some of their opratives maybe ?

This has been one of the questions I have had as well. While I agree that the US would not have made the trade, I cannot imagine that they wouldn't
be extremely interested in who they wanted to trade for.

While I'm not ready to believe that the murder was a CIA plot, there are too many questions that need to be answered.

THe Iraqi's are still mainting the US had him and vice versa. The State department at one point told his parents that he was safe and in US custody.
The lawsuit filed by his parents.

And now something I heard on Foxnews today indicated that Berg had a Koran and anti-semitic literature in his possession. Why would a Jewish kid have
anti lit.? It bothers me that someone would release this. It's almost if to imply that he was doing more than contracting work in Iraq.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.